General comments

I don't think I have a serious problem with the music community making the decision always to record each part (i.e. not allowing sequential parts), but I strongly object to imposing that instruction on everybody else. I *am* interested in naming the parts, but in my opinion "Homer. Iliad. Book 1-6" is adequate and should at least remain as an option. Under the proposal as I read it the only options will be either to name each book:

Homer. Iliad. Book 1

Homer. Iliad. Book 2

Homer. Iliad. Book 3

Homer. Iliad. Book 4

Homer. Iliad. Book 5

Homer. Iliad. Book 6

or record the useless

Homer. Iliad. Selections

This also has implications for 24.6, "Numbering of part", which is defined as "a designation of the sequencing of a part or parts within a larger work." This would presumably apply to the books in the Iliad, but it also applies to series numbering. If we're going to force everything to follow the proposed music rule, then 24.6 would need tidying up as well, which would affect series numbering in 8XX. If I read implications of the proposal correctly (assuming 24.6 is brought into conformance with this proposal), we would no longer have the option to record

This proposal, which began with music, should not be generalized. I actually now have my doubts about applying it to music, but I know the proposal came through and was approved. But if the Music Group thinks it can be generalized that means there isn't a special music-related reason why sequences such as "Book 1-6" can't be used, so why should there be a special music rule? I believe that's the point of the proposal, but I strongly disagree with eliminating the ability to record sequential numbering of parts.

Bob Maxwell, SAC liaison, 26 July 2013.

I share Robert’s concerns regarding this proposal. Could recording two or more successive parts as inclusive numbers of the parts (ex. book 1-6) still be allowed as an option? Maybe it might be better if we repeated the designation of the parts (ex. book 1-book 6 instead of book 1-6). Basically, I am wondering if machine-wise this might make more sense at least at some point when our catalogs become more machine actionable.—Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, Sept. 16, 2013.